LegoTheory

Abe lectured us about his Theory of Lego. It felt like school.
“Have you ever noticed that Lego plays a far more important role in the lives of computer people than in the general population? To a one, computer technicians spent huge portions of their youth heavily steeped in Lego and its highly focused, solitude-promoting culture. Lego was their common denominator toy”
Nobody was disagreeing.
“Now, I think it is safe to say that Lego is a potent three-dimensional modeling tool and a language in itself. And prolonged exposure to any language, either visual or verbal, undoubtedly alters the way a child perceives its universe. Examine the toy briefly . . .”
We were riveted.
“First, Lego is ontologically not unlike computers. This is to say that a computer by Itself is, well . . . nothing. Computers only become something when given a specific application. Ditto Lego. To use an Excel spreadsheet or to build a racing car-this is why we have computers and Lego. A PC or a Lego brick by itself is inert and pointless: a doorstop; litter. Made of acrylonitrile butadiene stryrene (ABS) plastic, Lego’s discrete modular bricks are indestructible and fully unintended to be nothing except themselves. “
We pass the snacks. “Soylent Melts”: Jack cheese and jalapenos microwaved onto Triscuits.
“Second, Lego is ‘binary’ –a yes/no structure; that is to say, the little nubblies atop any given Lego block are either connected to another unit of Lego or they are not. Analog relationships do not exist.”
“Monogamous?” asks Susan.
“Possibly. An interesting analogy. Third, Lego anticipates a future of pixilated ideas. It is digital. The charm and fun of Lego derives from reducing the organic to the modular: a zebra built of little cubes; Cape Cod houses digitized through the Hard Copy TV lens that pixelates the victim’s face into little squares of color.”